Question of the Day | 10/05/2009 12:30 pm

Should Roman Polanski go to prison?

Candice Bergen, Liz Smith and Joan Ganz Cooney discuss the fate of Roman Polanski.

Wikipedia

Image by Film Servis Festival Karlovy Vary

Candice Bergen | 10/05/2009 12:00 am

Candice Bergen: An Alternative Punishment for Roman Polanski

The Roman thing is complicated as we all know. It brings out the dark, avenging side of America, yet it is a crime. It was absolutely a criminal, indecent, amoral act and should be acknowledged and in some way paid for. But he is a brilliant, gifted artist. He is a father. And he is 75. How much time should he serve? And why is he not allowed to be home in Switzerland under house arrest? With his kids? Why in prison? What should not happen is his being made an example of with a harsh sentence. There should be a resolution that factors in his contributions and his age. Prolonged house arrest?

277 Comments

Joan Ganz Cooney | 10/05/2009 12:00 am

Joan Ganz Cooney: Polanski Should Just Face It

I wish he’d come to the States and accept whatever punishment was meted out, do time if that is what was decided and get this behind him and us.

11 Comments

Liz Smith | 10/05/2009 12:00 am

Liz Smith on Roman Polanski: Formerly the 'Most Detestable Creature Imaginable'

I don’t know what to say about Roman Polanski.

For years I felt he was the most detestable creature imaginable – drugging and having sex with an underage girl, then fleeing the law. Then about a year ago I saw the HBO documentary on him and it seemed he was railroaded by a really crazy judge and a not-so-perfect Los Angeles prosecuting system. But after that, when he was offered a deal by the very law that had convicted him, he still didn’t come back to the U.S. to face the music. Now – I just don’t know. I see nothing served by his going to prison. On the other hand, even if he is an artistic genius, that doesn’t exactly clear him. And the law is the law.

42 Comments

180 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

"Oh. My. Gawd.

Is this, what, 1940? I mean…a 13 year old is a temptress and the poor, adult male couldn’t resist? Wth…"

What, the idea that a middle-aged man who, fully knowing the age of the girl he raped, is basically a victim of a little (13 year old) seductress doesn’t sit well with you? No, me either. I hate to say it, but, in the name of progressiveness, I see quite a few folks reverting to the worst and most primitive of mindsets: that the woman/girl who was raped deserved it/was looking for it/got what she wanted, and that the man who raped her was a victim of her wiles.

By Rachel F on 10/05/2009 12:29 pm

e-mail alert

Baby Snooks - Do you think that is what happened here?

By Bonnie O on 10/05/2009 11:50 am

e-mail alert

Absolutely I do and as posted somewhere else I believe she has taken responsibility for it on some level and in fact they both have took responsibility for it and moved on and went on and have families and children who are now being victimized by this which calls into question everyone’s concern for innocent children since I cannot imagine any children more innocent than theirs.

By Baby Snooks on 10/05/2009 12:04 pm

e-mail alert

Baby Snooks - I think you are misstating her comments. Her comments about not wanting to relive the experience does not excuse HIS actions. Her comments about not wishing any harm (or some such comment) to him does not excuse HIS crime. He was prosecuted by the State. He should do his time and then he can return to Europe and live happily ever after.

If every young girl who ventured into sexual awareness is forced to relive her actions of complicity that led to rape, then we would live in a sorry society indeed. This is not about the 13 year old girl; it is about the crime. If the girl’s parents were reaching for a pot of gold from a rich Hollywood producer by bringing the girl to the District Attorney’s office, then they have to account for their own actions…. not Polanski’s. He should return to California, face his criminal penalties and serve his time. He can do no less for all the innocent children who are now being affected by his actions … then and now.

By Bonnie O on 10/05/2009 12:19 pm

e-mail alert

http://articles.latimes.com/2003/feb/23/opinion/oe-geimer23

I am not misstating anything. Here are her comments. And these coments are "black and white." All of this has become a prime example of everything that is wrong with our civil and criminal justice system and everything that is wrong with our country.

By Baby Snooks on 10/05/2009 12:28 pm

e-mail alert

Even disregarding her age, she says that it was not consensual by any means and, " I said no, repeatedly, but he wouldn’t take no for an answer." That, right there, is enough. When a woman says no, it means ‘no’.

Of course, he should never have been in a situation where a 13 year old girl had to say ‘no’, but I digress…

By Rachel F on 10/05/2009 2:56 pm

e-mail alert

Rachel F - I agree. This discourse has drifted into a defense of "blame the victim". Too bad.

By Bonnie O on 10/05/2009 3:55 pm

e-mail alert

I have read that the vast amounts of money that has been spent on trying to reform these perverts has been going to a lost cause.

I recently saw an interview with Judge Judy. Whether you like her or not, she spent many years in family law practice. Her take is that child molesters are hardwired a different way and are never reformed. She cited cases where there was probation only to see the same molestation repeated. Those released from prison were back to their old habits in time. Her opinion is they should be locked away for life because they are not reformable.

So, I can’t help but wonder about Polanski. How many young girls might there have been before Samantha? How many have there been after her? Speculation and nothing more. But most molesters/child rapists don’t just have one go at it.

By Maggie W on 10/05/2009 10:41 am

e-mail alert

This is a stupid question with a simple answer: lock him up and throw away the key, as you should any pædophile.

By John G on 10/05/2009 11:02 am

e-mail alert

___________________

Good question. One thing that might be pointed out is that when Vanity Fair ran a libelous story about him, Roman Polanski sued and won.

Those who are going to make libelous accusations should do so with full disclosure of who they are. So that they can be called into court and offer proof of their accusations. Saves attorneys from having deliver subpoenas to the owners of the websites where the accusations were made.

Some of you really are falling victim to the worst of schadenfruede and simply calling out to burn a witch at the stake. Just becasue you want to burn a witch at the stake.

Mia Farrow testified on Roman Polanski’s behalf when he sued Vanity Fair in 2005. I cannot imagine Mia Farrow testifying on behalf of a pedophile and probably the only reason why her signature is on the petition is because there is no way she is going to put her signature next to Woody Allen which itself is just one of many nasty little cans of worms being opened up in this and which is revictimizing quite a few people.

But keep waving your torches and eventually the witch will be tossed to you to burn at the stake. Unfortunately you may be burning quite a few others as well. Including, in this case, the victim.

By Baby Snooks on 10/05/2009 11:24 am

e-mail alert

Those who are going to make libelous accusations should do so with full disclosure of who they are. So that they can be called into court and offer proof of their accusations.

Well Snooks…. there is information about 2 underaged girls that have been MOLESTED by this man. There is this 13 year old girl that he admitted to raping. We also know about 15 yr old Nastassja Kinski that he "had an affair with" at the time of the movie Tess. How many underaged children does one man have to sleep with before you believe that he is a pedophile?

By Roger from Ohio on 10/05/2009 8:30 pm

e-mail alert

We also know about 15 yr old Nastassja Kinski that he "had an affair with" at the time of the movie Tess.

____________________

Natassja Kinski was of legal age meaning she could consent to sex with anyone she pleased to have sex with. Age of consent means just that in Europe. Which is not saddled by the puritanical morals of some. But then not of legal age according to you. It doesn’t matter what the law says to you. It is so comforting to know we have people like you to tell us what is and is not acceptable in our society. Regardless of what the law says.

By Baby Snooks on 10/06/2009 11:00 am

e-mail alert

What age do you feel is too young for a girl to have sex?

We you as supportive of Catholic priests are you are with Roman Polanski?

How old were you when you lost your virginity? and how old was your partner?

There are many things that are legal but are still wrong. Are you dating a child that has reached the age of consent?

HOW OLD IS TOO YOUNG?

By Roger from Ohio on 10/06/2009 5:26 pm

e-mail alert

This is a no brainer. This prick should be in prison for ther rest of his life. Read the entire transcript of what this prick did to a 13 year old girl. If it was my daughter, he would’ve never seen 44.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

By Frank Somsel on 10/05/2009 11:38 am

e-mail alert

He drugged a 13 year old girl, made her drink alcohol and then sodomized her…..should he go to jail? Yes.

Why are people even questioning this? I don’t care that her mother was in the house when it happened. I don’t care that she is now in her 40’s and feels it should be dismissed because she is over it. He committed a crime and was never punished for that act. And quite honestly, has anyone ever heard of a pedophile only raping (yes Whoopi it was rape-rape) a child once in his entire life? No, I am sure she wasn’t the only one.

He disgusts me and people who are defending him need to take a long hard look at their moral compass, because it is seriously skewed.

By Belinda Joy on 10/05/2009 12:03 pm